object_storage_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states it returns access credentials, which is important sensitivity context. However, it doesn't discuss idempotency, auth requirements, or the fact that the response contains sensitive material needing careful handling. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but nothing is made explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sections: one-line purpose, Args, Returns. Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes — no filler or repetition of the tool name beyond the first clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a simple one-param getter: it covers what the tool does, what the parameter means, and what it returns. The gaps are the missing differentiation from sibling getters and the lack of any caution about the sensitive access credentials in the response, which would be valuable for an agent handling the output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining object_storage_id can be an ID, label, or UUID, with concrete examples ('my-storage', 'backup-bucket'). This adds real meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific Object Storage instance'). The phrase 'detailed information' loosely distinguishes it from sibling getters like object_storage_get_s3_config and object_storage_get_storage_summary, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains several object storage getters (get_s3_config, get_storage_summary, find_by_region), and the description doesn't help an agent decide which to invoke or when to prefer a different one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.